Question for Obama

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

Some wise man said once:
*Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech.
Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.*

I wonder why Democratic party leaders, Obama and Clinton was so much against those anti-Muslim film maker? Even here in talk_politics I was blamed for defending those "provocateurs" rights.

Since when "provocateur" supposed to be an offensive epithet toward peaceful film-maker?
Why is that? Seems they forgot completely about freedom.
They don't understand it, don't need it, don't want it. They hate freedom.
I wouldn't defend that Romney is freedom fighter either, but at least he understands this issue.
I can't tell that Obama or Hillary does.

In their mind "freedom of speech" is to post pornographic collage with their political opponent faces. Seems like they are "ok" with any libel against republicans, libertarians, tea party and so on. Who said a word against that lie in democratic party? Anyone? Is it because of freedom of speech or what? "Kill the rich" is covered by freedom of speech, but shitty anti-Muslim video is not?


Where was that principle when Clinton promised to prosecute filmmaker behind incendiary Muslim Movie?? (also read here)

Seems like Obama's administration completely forgot about freedom, the only freedom they respect - their own freedom to lie and rule.
More government means more freedom for Obama, less for people.
Funny thing is that "democratic" media supposed to fight for freedom, helps them to lie effectively and don't question their decisions and lie at all. You can google "Charles Woods" but only Fox and abcnews have coverage for that.
In internet era at least few hours after information become widely available they still failed to report it. Such a liars.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Oh, we get it just fine. It's a long screed ranting about why liberals aren't being the usual traitors to America and all it holds dear, trying to poison its precious bodily fluids with Communist mind-control devices and instead back a Democrat when he's in office. It includes the OP's invariable obsession with anti-Islamic rhetoric, as though a miniscule portion of the USA could hold down the entirety of the rest of it (between them the gangbangers and MS-13 are more than sufficient to smash any would be US Taliban) and throws the word Freedom around like a chimp throwing its own shit in a zoo and with just as much meaning in the word itself. We're just taking it as seriously as it deserves, which is as seriously as Uwe Boll's pretense at being a film-maker.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You claim to get it and then detail all the the things that show you don't. Keep on keeping on.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

But of course saying what 'it' is is beyond your mighty intellect as that would mean treating the plebes as people worthy of respect, eh?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's not that difficult to get (I thought), so if people would step up to even try, then we could meet in the middle and get somewhere.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I understand his point quite well. Muslims are evil, so the President doing anything at all with them other than initiating genocide is evil, and freedom is not possible under a black Democrat.